Posted
by
timothyon Thursday June 20, 2013 @08:44AM
from the didn't-you-see-how-michael-nyquist-lived? dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Gottfrid Swartholm Warg — known also as Anakata — was on June 20th sentenced to two years imprisonment for data breaches and aggravated fraud by the District Court of Nacka in his native Sweden. It is unclear at this time wether the decision will be appealed to a higher court. Prison time in Sweden is generally served for two thirds of the time sentenced, if the person behaves well and the court finds no reason to abstain from the norm. Also, time spent in pre-trial confinement (swe: 'häkte') is deducted from the time sentenced. Warg was arrested in Cambodia in september of 2012, transferred to Sweden and ordered by court to remain in pre-trial confinement from September 14th, 2012."

2/3 of 2 years is 16 months. He's been held for 9 months already, so he has another 7 to go (until Jan 2014).

Yeah, and afterwards he's likely going to Denmark, to stand trial there for breaching servers belonging to the Danish police (hosted by the ever-incompetent CSC).

Remember, he's not serving time for his Pirate Bay involvement (yet?); he's serving time for breaching bank systems and using the access in an attempt to steal millions. Since he was extradited for this case, not the Pirate Bay case, it seems that the Swedish prosecutors actually consider this worse than file sharing. (Who would've thought?)

I don't think they are allowed to serialize his supposed crimes in such a manner. All known crimes are supposed to be subject to one trial and one sentence, to prevent the legal system from indefinitely keeping someone locked up by partitioning the crimes and re-charing them when they're out indefinitely.

Then again, it wouldn't be the first time the law is bypassed to fight the great evil that digital piracy apparently is.

He shouldn't really be in prison at all. At first when I saw the story I was sad. But now that I see he'll be only there for a short time I hope he uses the time to take a break from all things internet and chills out.

I heard on Norwegian national radio that, apart from the Logica breach, he hacked into bank servers and actually managed to transfer the equivalent of USD 3300 from a Danish union to himself. I don't believe it warrants two years imprisonment, but it certainly should be a punishable crime.

Why? It's not like it's particularly unstable, and requires reinstalling every so often *cough*windows*cough*.... and if you're a sysadmin for a company and are installing it fresh on different computers all the time, wouldn't it be a more efficient to use the same distribution for each instead of searching for different ones on TPB all the time, and only download a new copy of the distro when that particular one is updated?

Unless you're stating that he's been framed, I'd say hacking a bank would probably get you arrested no matter who you are, TPB or not. In this case, I'd say that it was merely icing on the cake for those who care about TPB.

The incident Warg was convicted for, data breach and releasing said data on the internet, is unrelated to The Pirate Bay. It's like saying Lindsay Lohan was convicted for acting, which I guess could be the case but you get my point.

Why is that ironic? Linux is already freely distributed and often readily available as torrents directly on the distro vendor's web site, so there would not be any significant benefit to distributing such distros through TPB.

Although the demographic that does, in my observation, seems to be largely comprised of individuals who for whatever reason feel that by doing so they are somehow validating the existence of places like TPB.

Remind me, is it called the "justice" system or the "rehabilitative" system? Historically, has the focus been on "just and deserved punishment", or "rehabilitation"? When people criticize a judgement, do they typically say "he wasnt rehabilitated" or "justice was not done"? Do they call it "ineffective", or do they call it "unjust"?

You should read CS Lewis' essay on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment [spiked-online.com] (warning, PDF). I think he makes an excellent case why straying away from a "retributive" or "punitiv

Do you really want the government deciding when your prison term is up / "justice has been served" based on whether they think you have been rehabilitated or not?

That's a good point; I wish I had mod points for you. That said, "an eye for an eye" is just. It is, perhaps, the most fair retribution possible, but it is not the sort of thing we see, or want to see in our justice system. I think there needs to be some mix of justice and mercy.

Why do you think that the aim of rehabiliting criminals somehow implies unspecified terms of incarceration?

Basically, if the point of the incarceration isnt "what is deserved", but "is he cured", then there is no grounds for objecting to even an indefinite incarceration-- so long as it can be shown that the inmate is not yet "cured".

The only thing which allows for a discussion on "does the punishment fit the crime" is the concept of retributive punishment-- that we will punish you as far as and no further than your crime deserves.

Basically, if the point of the incarceration isnt "what is deserved", but "is he cured", then there is no grounds for objecting to even an indefinite incarceration-- so long as it can be shown that the inmate is not yet "cured".

And like I said, that point is bullshit, as evidenced by the fact that justice systems aiming for rehibilitation over punishment don't, as a matter of fact, hand over indefinite sentences except for things like murder. Imprisonment still acts as a punishment, even if that is not its

I didnt say that people DO get indefinite incarcerations, I said that there is no grounds for objecting to one. You havent explained on what grounds one COULD object in a situation where, for instance, a petty thief has not been rehabilitated after a 10 year sentence. If the POINT of his incarceration was to rehabilitate him, how could you possibly object to an extended sentence?

Luckily we do not live in a world where rehabilitation is seen as the primary point of imprisonment, so of course we dont see th

You don’t understand the main purpose of providing entertainment (and gyms, libraries, other privileges) to prisoners. It is a tool of control — something the authorities can take away. If the prisoners are all kept in the bare-minimum conditions sufficient to technically sustain life, they will have nothing to lose, nothing to dissuade them from rioting or going insane, costing the state far more than a population of relatively docile inmates would. Furthermore, upon release they will be even l

Yep, and we make sure to feed our inmates more properly than our schoolkids. Our country is kinda backwards on alot of things.

We also pay our politicans more than the people who haven't done anything!

And every public owned property or company is sold out so they can afford to lower the taxes for the people who earn the most while they also want to make it worse for people with no job so they go find one themself even though they themself got an awesome parachute with lots of income from not doing shit after they have left their political carrier because obviously it's freaking hard getting a job when people know you from the polit

It's about rehabilitation. Seems to be more effective than punishment (see USA PMITA prison system).

It's actually not that efficient.

And I know outside of Oslo they have an island where you can "go to jail" and just live as normal with a house and stuff. They possibly had no guards or fences. If you behave there then fine. If you can act as a regular citizen they are happy. I guess if you escape or get caught again you may not go there a second time. Your choice.

Anyway I think the US putting lots of people on drugs in jail is just fucked up. I don't do drugs but that is anything is breaking them AWAY from

Quite possibly. I haven't seen a study on why the rates are lower. Weeding out sociopaths that aren't extremely good at controlling their behavior probably comes automatically when you have to behave in the normal prison system for a while to get there.

Yea rehabilitation makes sense but there's people out there that need that type of accommodations that did no wrong to anyone. It's like committing a crime will reward you with those living conditions but losing a job and being poor punishes you.

It's about rehabilitation. Seems to be more effective than punishment (see USA PMITA prison system).

Oh yea. An Anonymous Coward posts an opinion.

As an American, I'm going to give you some ideas on how things are here. First of all, yes, some people in prison in the US are there under dubious circumstances. When I was younger I was more of a "Lock up the druggies" kind of guy, but now I feel that imprisoning people for simply using drugs is counterproductive and harmful to them and society as a whole. So yes, we certainly do have people locked up for stuff they probably shouldn't be locked up for.

Have you considered that grabbing people for minor offenses (or things that shouldn't even be offenses) and tossing them into a prison system with no significant rehabilitative function and significant violence for too long, then (effectively) branding them with a scarlet letter to make sure they can't re-integrate into society and tossing them on the street with nothing might be a cause of the violence?

Perhaps if we spent less resources punishing people and more on showing them how they could do better, we

According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. When this theory is combined, as frequently happens, with the belief that all crime is more or less pathological, the idea of mending tails off into that of healing or curing and punishment becomes therapeutic. Thus it appears at first sight that we have passed from the harsh and self-righteous notion of giving the wicked their deserts to the charitable and enlightened one of tending the psychologically sick. What could be more amiable? One little point which is taken for granted in this theory needs, however, to be made explicit. The things done to the criminal, even if they are called cures, will be just as compulsory as they were in the old days when we called them punishments. If a tendency to steal can be cured by psychotherapy, the thief will no doubt be forced to undergo the treatment. Otherwise, society cannot continue.

My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.

The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust. I do not here contend that the question ‘Is it deserved?’ is the only one we can reasonably ask about a punishment. We may very properly ask whether it is likely to deter others and to reform the criminal. But neither of these two last questions is a question about justice. There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.

In London during the riots, a man was sentenced to six months jail for stealing a bottle of water.

However, the bankers crash the economy, cost taxpayers £130 billion pounds, threw millions out of work due to their negligence and criminality -- and NOONE has gone to jail. In America, the problem is made worse because it's actually Obama Administration policy to not prosecute bankers for fraud.

Could you define "the bankers" more specifically? No, you can't can you? Nor do you really understand the cause of the global crash. The reason that no-one has gone to gaol is that, however much you want it to be, it's not really anyone's fault. Do you have 0% credit card? A mortgage you now can't really afford? You're as complicit as every other short sighted idiot involved.

A) how convenient it is for the government to be able to charge him with somethingB) what exactly the government will do with him *when* he's convicted (I would like to be able to say "if"...but really)

That is very true, but there comes a point where you either need to claim that an incredible weight of evidence needs to be dismissed as plants by a conspiracy-- and at that point you have no firm grounds on which to believe ANYTHING with any confidence-- or else you have to accept that even those you consider to be "heroes" have their own skeletons.

There is a ton to suggest that there is at least some weight to the charges against both Anakata and Assange.

This is a low blow from the establishment. Granted, Gottfrid comes off as a deranged, drug-addled terrorist occasionally, but he is at least partially responsible for the underpinnings of a true technological and cultural revolution. I am a security professional and as pissed as I get when some random asshole or DDOS (or me) brings down a datacenter of mine, I'm more upset with myself and my team for allowing that unsafe condition to exist in the first place. We have to be right all the time and they have t

I can assure you the breach is being looked at from all levels of the security apparatus in Sweden, civilian as well as military, and a number of regulation authorities.

In many ways this breach is a good thing since it broke publicly and thus became unavoidable to manage. It is systemic and nationwide (presumably ALL swedish citizens have been exposed through the SPAR-registry breach. The SPAR registry is an offshoot of the official adress registry for all persons in Sweden), spans multiple government agenc

Part of the problem here is that he does often come across as a drug addled terrorist, and judges almost universally tend to not only find against people who do that, but also tend to put the maximum sentence on them, in the hopes that during their time in prison, they'll come out of their drug-addling, and actually notice where they are. (Yes, sometimes that's hopeless optimism.) Gottfrid may be partially responsible for some wonderful technology being popularized, but he's also responsible for a lot of horrible things as well (google "Potentialprostitutes" and "extortion" for an example) - calling on Karma for this really doesn't weigh in his favor.

Yes, Logica and Nordea did fail to protect their customers from people doing bad things, but that doesn't mean the people doing the bad things shouldn't be punished for it. If anything, Logica and Nordea deserve a bit of punishment too - much like if a school bus driver decided to take the kids through a rough section of town (as a shortcut!) and some gang member shoots the bus up - yes, the bus driver should be in a lot of trouble for that, but that doesn't mean that the gang member who shot at the bus should be let off, even if nobody was hit.

you cant destroy the pirate bay by simply arresting its founders, or any other torrent tracking system for that matter. its ludicrous.
the internet as a system and community enacts a sort of triage when this happens, and its geometrically faster than the litigation the **aa tends to favour.
One could argue rather convincingly that the advent of the magnet link was the downfall of the tradtional model of litigating peer-to-peer to death. Call me a cheerleader, but im sure Anakata understands that seven months of involuntary detention is no more an inconvenience than being roped into a particularly bad vodaphone contract.

Theyre not arresting him for pirate bay, but for all the other crap he does while showing contempt for the law.Right from the summary:

for data breaches and aggravated fraud

From the article:

Svartholm Warg was convicted by the Nacka District Court after a hacking attack against Swedish IT firm Logica through which he gained unauthorized access to the personal data of thousands of people, which he then published on the net.

The conviction was also for hacking into the mainframe of Nordea, Scandinavia's biggest bank.

Please tell me how much of a miscarriage of justice it is that this guy be punished.

And you get modded +5 insightful for providing zero insight into this discussion! You didnt even read the summary or article! The mind boggles.

I know he'd love to receive some reading material, hygiene products, junk food... etc. I think there are lots of posts on prisonlinks.com that talk about what you can and can't send a prisoner in the USA but I'm not sure about Sweden.

I mean every message and statement on TPB is about freedom and such, but then they basically distribute access to copyrighted content. Freedom is not selective. People have a right to distribute content, but people also have a right to protect their content, period.

While you may not like copyright, its a law, and breaking the law is breaking the law.

I don't believe, however, that exposing links to protected material is the same as distributing copyright material. Going after TPB is the easy route, going after the millions of peers that actually have the protected content is impossible. Providing plans how to build a bomb is not the same as someone taking those plans and building a bomb with intent to use it, for instance.

However the the messaging of the TPB is watered down and idealistic. They want to be a mechanism to allow independents in music, video or other arts to have a mechanism to get content to the masses, which I wholeheartedly support, yet the primary and often only reason why people use TPB is to steal protected content. Why? Because its there.

TPB will not change the minds of billion dollar companies to remove copyright and freely distribute content, nor should they. If I spend $100 million to make a movie, and take the risk to release it, I expect a return on that investment and have the "freedom" to have the content protected. Just because its easy to steal digital content doesn't make it valid. If it was easy to steal cars it doesn't make it a valid argument that I should be allowed to steal cars then.

If TPB was serious about being a mechanism for content distribution for the "independent" then they should have changed their site long ago and blocked links to copyrighted content. I mean you can't be a champion for the independent when you don't respect people that also want to protect their investments.

The fight against DRM and copyright is NOT THE SAME as providing a resource for independent content distribution, nobody is blocking independent content distribution, just look at YouTube and Vimeo and Tumblr and Instagram and a slew of other social content channels.

TPB should switch to a streaming cloud service allowing independents to provide access to their content. Become the independent Netflix and Pandora and App or Game Store if they really believe in protecting the independent creator, but continuing to offer links to protected content and fighting for the rights of the independent is a mixed message and will only continue to cause them grief.

Hes not in jail because of TBP in this case, but for hacking a bank and an IT firm, and then leaking a ton of customer data. I know this is slashdot and all, but its right there in the summary. Lets at least pretend to look informed before spouting off.

However the the messaging of the TPB is watered down and idealistic. They want to be a mechanism to allow independents in music, video or other arts to have a mechanism to get content to the masses, which I wholeheartedly support, yet the primary and often only reason why people use TPB is to steal protected content. Why? Because its there.

Well, it's there, and it's linked to via a site called "The Pirate Bay". Which also kinda undermines the suggestion that the "messaging" for The Pirate Bay is "to allow

I'm betting at the end of this sentence, he will be remanded into US custody for Crimes Against Corporate Profits, sentenced while on the Gulfstream, and sent directly to Club PMITA for 20 years or suicide whichever comes first.